Phasing out? Not a single product has stopped using os x. All new products have been based on os x but given a different name in order to allow distinction in our vocabulary. The name might change, but apple is doubling down on the codebase that is os x / iOS.
So will the name change? Maybe. But that doesn't really interest me. Other than that, apple shows no indication of switching to a different code base.
It certainly is possible but I don't think they will.
I think Mac OS X or XI will be for "professional" use, however. If Apple make iDevices to "replace pcs" then they may attain some of the baggage that makes them less fun and easy for end users. IMO, a big advantage of an iPad/iDevice is that it *doesn't* try to do everything a pc does. That makes it simpler, easier and more fun to use. Making the iPad/iDevice to replace a pc might just make it a pc.
I think Apple's iDevice strategy is aimed at having them appeal and be useful for 80% of the market. The 20% that need all the features and capabilities of a pc/Mac will just need to get a pc/Mac. So I don't see an Aperture for iPad or FCP for iPad or Xcode for iPad as applications that will eventually be developed. Those are pro apps and most suited for a pc/Mac. But this strategy marginalizes pcs.
However, I must admit that Apple don't have much qualms about killing off products and services they see as dead ends. In the 1997 WWDC closing keynote SJ basically had a Q and A with the attendees and he admitted that they "put a bullet in the head" of certain products that Apple/SJ didn't think made sense. Link He admitted that it "pissed" some people off but he was pretty unapologetic about it. He viewed it as necessary for Apple's future. Who's gonna argue with him now?
iOS is a growing success. Therefore Apple must be de-emphasizing MacOS X. No. I mean, really. Does Lion look like Apple is putting less effort into MacOS X? Really?
Rumors have it that Apple is testing the A5 in laptops. Therefore, Apple must be switching its laptops to iOS. No. Assume to a microsecond that the rumor is true. This logic appears to come from people who have never lived through an Apple processor transition before. No 680x0 to PPC transition. No PPC to Intel x86 transition. OpenSTEP ran on several processors. MacOS X has never run on fewer than two that we know about. iOS and MacOS X share a codebase. iOS is optimized for touch-based computing, not for a specific processor. MacOS X is optimized for the mouse/touchpad and keyboard, not Intel.
MacOS X and iOS are cross-pollinating gestures. This is irrefutable proof that iOS will replace MacOS X. No. Come on, people. Apple learns. Laptop and desktop devices are benefiting from Apple's work on palmtop devices. This is not evidence MacOS X is going away. It is evidence that the engineers at Apple have the sense that God gave red brick.
Apple is moving its software distribution from CDs and DVDs to the Mac App Store. Surely, this is unimpeachable proof that Apple is shifting to iOS on all platforms. No. The Mac App Store is a distribution channel, not an OS. We don't still live in 1995. The overwhelming majority of my software purchases are by digital download. Even a relatively slow Internet connection is faster than the wait for the delivery via FedEx or the drive to a brick-and-mortar store to purchase a shrinkwrap box. This development could not have been less of a surprise. The first MacBook Air, which has no optical drive, went on sale 3.5 years ago. This move confirms the fact that software distribution via removable storage is obsolete much like the original iMac confirmed the fact that the floppy diskette was obsolete.
Apple is fixated on the consumer market. Its elimination of its Xserve years ago is proof of this. No. Apple is fixated on profits. Dell and HP may sell servers, but Apple has left them in the dust and disappeared over the horizon. Companies dedicated to servers like Sun and SGI went belly-up and were sold-off years ago. Apparently, the enterprise market is not terribly good for a computer company's corporate health. That said, Lion Server will be the most accessible commercial server OS ever. There is some controversy about whether it will cost $50 US or $80 US. However, either price will make it substantial less expensive than the consumer version of Leopard. At that price, we can expect more firms and individuals to pop for the server OS and run their own local servers. I expect the number of MacOS X servers to increase.
What all of this boils down to is that the Apple is taking us into the future, but it is a future that many do not understand. The result is that people like the author, Barry Collins, have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that future.
I hope so. Everyone should hope so. If they don't cannibalize themselves someone else will.
The headline is emotionally charged and negative, but continuous change and refinement is a necessary function of a successful business. One that is not in stasis. I hope a "Macbook Pro" in 2015 will look nothing like a MBP in 2005. I hope it is as improved and different as an iPhone and iPod touch are to cell phones and DAPs in 2005.
No matter how much Apple wants to simplify the OS, they simply can't go to the extent of iOS for everyone. For a start, they can't cut out interpreted code. They can't remove the filesystem - developers and IT staff need direct access to the unix system. They can't remove modal layouts.
It seems like they made a great move with iOS by cutting out all the fat first. They did this jumping from Mac OS 9 -> X and then PPC -> Intel. Then it was desktop -> mobile.
In successive iterations, we've seen iOS get more and more powerful. At WWDC, they said they want to get rid of the filesystem but all they've achieved is to make a more cumbersome application-centric workflow and a slower cloud-centric filesystem.
A simplified local filesystem that allows better use of space and shared documents as well as easy backups and data protection will have to come along whether they want it or not.
When this happens, the best of both OSs can come together to form a single, scalable OS.
I don't think apple has ever said they want to get rid of the file system. But perhaps I missed something... ? Rather, they are more focused on removing the requirement of file management unless people choose to tinker. Photo management is a perfect example of this.
Remember back in the classic era when we had to manage memory allocation? Well someday I predict that most users will look back and remember when we had to manage file locations. It will viewed as a cumbersome relic that was imposed on every user across the board. In the future, manual file management will be used only by power users.
This isn't to say that iOS (handheld OS X) is replacing desktop/laptop OS X though. Instead, it means that Apple is tailoring interfaces and workflows to the tasks and devices being used. No matter how simplified our desktop OS becomes, the front-end will still be different than the mobile and server versions. Meanwhile the underpinnings will remain nearly identical.
Nothing is being phased out! If anything, more versions of OS X are being phased in.
I don't think apple has ever said they want to get rid of the file system. But perhaps I missed something... ?
Steve @ WWDC 2011:
"Documents in the Cloud really completes our iOS document storage story. A lot of us have been working for 10 years to get rid of the file system so the user doesn't have to learn about it."
Oddly, they already have a filesystem for apps with home-screens and 1-level deep folders as well as metadata managed iTunes. Those filing systems aren't going away so why do they make out like document filing is somehow a complexity that needs to be hidden rather than just improved?
Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing so the better alternatives are local storage with a filesystem or cloud storage with a filesystem. No matter how fast connections become or how secure companies make you believe your data is, it doesn't change the fact that your data is out of your control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Remember back in the classic era when we had to manage memory allocation? Well someday I predict that most users will look back and remember when we had to manage file locations.
Memory management is a system task though and does not deal with important persistent data. Documents are at the user-level and both personal and important. They can't be and shouldn't be trivially managed automatically without incurring serious consequences.
Like I say, I don't think the goal should be to remove document filing systems - after all, we use them all the time in everyday life - the goal should just be to make filing better and easier. If you just hide it away from the user then it will cause frustrations when they can't access a file because they are offline and don't understand why. Then they panic because they think it's gone.
Mac OS X was very well received when it came out and one big reason was control. The old Mac OS was too limited in what you could do and very poor for development. Do you ever hear complaints about the Mac OS X walled garden? Not really because you are in control - you download what apps you want, you can play violent games, you can watch adult content easily, you can play whatever video formats you want, you can run emulators/virtual machines, setup a server and on and on. iOS doesn't give you this freedom.
Freedom does not supersede usability, otherwise we'd all be using Linux but it's extremely important nonetheless and I don't think Apple can ever reach a point where they lock Mac OS X down to the level of iOS. I think it will be far better for iOS and Mac OS to evolve together and form a powerful, secure and flexible OS.
I don't think iCloud creates a "then you're offline and can't fine the file and panic" scenario at all. In fact Apple seemed to go out of their way to distinguish themselves from Google in this respect.
iCloud is a synchronization scheme, or as Jobs put it "the truth." In a world of multiple devices and versions, iCloud gives you a reference that gets pushed to your local device. I can't see where that leads to inaccessibility, ever. At worst the latest changes don't get backed up and pushed to your other devices, but that's always going to be true with any on-line system if there's an outage or you don't have a connection.
iCloud simplifies the file system by taking away worries about saving, where saved, which version, etc. You don't have to do anything at all, you just know you have the latest version, no matter which machine you made the last changes on, and that if you lose that version you can recover it.
These are all somewhat different matters than iOS' document centric, flat file system. I don't mind the document centric part, as long as every app that can work with a given file has access to it. I do think the flat thing is going to have to be addressed if Apple is serious about the post-PC thing. You can't really have people opening Pages, say, and only be able to peruse a really long list of possible files, with no user facing way to organize them.
"Documents in the Cloud really completes our iOS document storage story. A lot of us have been working for 10 years to get rid of the file system so the user doesn't have to learn about it."
Oddly, they already have a filesystem for apps with home-screens and 1-level deep folders as well as metadata managed iTunes. Those filing systems aren't going away so why do they make out like document filing is somehow a complexity that needs to be hidden rather than just improved?
Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing so the better alternatives are local storage with a filesystem or cloud storage with a filesystem. No matter how fast connections become or how secure companies make you believe your data is, it doesn't change the fact that your data is out of your control.
Memory management is a system task though and does not deal with important persistent data. Documents are at the user-level and both personal and important. They can't be and shouldn't be trivially managed automatically without incurring serious consequences.
Like I say, I don't think the goal should be to remove document filing systems - after all, we use them all the time in everyday life - the goal should just be to make filing better and easier. If you just hide it away from the user then it will cause frustrations when they can't access a file because they are offline and don't understand why. Then they panic because they think it's gone.
Mac OS X was very well received when it came out and one big reason was control. The old Mac OS was too limited in what you could do and very poor for development. Do you ever hear complaints about the Mac OS X walled garden? Not really because you are in control - you download what apps you want, you can play violent games, you can watch adult content easily, you can play whatever video formats you want, you can run emulators/virtual machines, setup a server and on and on. iOS doesn't give you this freedom.
Freedom does not supersede usability, otherwise we'd all be using Linux but it's extremely important nonetheless and I don't think Apple can ever reach a point where they lock Mac OS X down to the level of iOS. I think it will be far better for iOS and Mac OS to evolve together and form a powerful, secure and flexible OS.
Ah, point conceded about what Steve said ion regard to getting rid of the file system. But for some reason i'm still interpreting that as getting rid of the requirement to understand the filesystem, not actually getting rid of the filesystem itself. What I think he meant is something similar to iPhoto. Users can divorce themselves from file management if it fits their workflow. Or they can continue to manage things manually if it is preferable. Either you use the non-filesystem tool, or you use the filesystem. Or a combination of both. Despite the exact wording of what he said, I believe that he meant eliminating filesystems as a necessity, not the removal of direct file access entirely.
I also disagree that "Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing". This isn't clear at all. Users can use photos and music in iMovie without knowing anything about the filesystem. We also manage to get those files all over the place, into email, onto iOS devices, onto facebook... all without ever touching the file system. Certainly, there are times when one or the other is superior. But my assertion, and what I think steve is asserting as well, is that most users don't want to use the file system for most tasks. Or at least they won't after they've experienced the alternative.
Take into account that i'm a developer who must deal with version control on a daily basis. Ironically, this also divorces me from the filesystem. Yet I don't think that apple is intending to remove that functionality for those people and tasks that need it.
Also I disagree that OS X was popular because it gave users more control. Rather, it is popular because it is powerful and convenient. In many instances that means eliminating the need to manage esoteric things for no reason. Note how convenient iTunes is. It is vastly superior to manually managing tens of thousands of music files.
With all that said, excellent post! I really enjoy discussions that forego platform zealotry. Even though we disagree on some points, well done!
Oddly, they already have a filesystem for apps with home-screens and 1-level deep folders as well as metadata managed iTunes. Those filing systems aren't going away so why do they make out like document filing is somehow a complexity that needs to be hidden rather than just improved?
Oops, forgot to reply to this key topic.
Perhaps it is just a semantic miscommunication, but I think that those are the filesystem replacements that Steve is talking about. Sure, they are hierarchical representations of data managed somewhat like files are in a filesystem, but the distinction beyond that is what he is referring to. iPhoto allows non-destructive editing and automatic filing while still allowing manual management. Additional functionality is provided above and beyond a filesystem yet somehow it ends up being simpler.
There is certainly a tradeoff, I'll grant that. But so far Apple seems to have made the right decisions in terms of providing an alternative to the file system for managing user data. I can't imagine trying to use my armada of digital devices via old fashioned and cumbersome file management. Merely moving pictures, movies and music between my cameras, iPhones, iPods, and iPads would be a full time job! Just try doing all that via the file system for a month. I think you'll agree that application or task centric data management is far superior to the filesystem for these types of typical tasks.
Oh, and email. Try managing your email through the filesystem. Seriously, the elimination of the need for direct file management is the best thing to happen in computing in a long time!
Does that mean OS X is being phased out? No. It just means that all operating systems are evolving.
I don't think iCloud creates a "then you're offline and can't fine the file and panic" scenario at all. In fact Apple seemed to go out of their way to distinguish themselves from Google in this respect.
You're right, with it being a sync scheme, it can't lead to permanent inaccessibility, unlike Google's setup - the worst that could really happen is that people rely on it too much and e.g sync a presentation to the iCloud and can't get it when they need it. ZDNet wrote the following statement for Apple's iCloud design:
"For Google, the Web is the center of the universe. For Apple, your device is the center of the universe."
It seems Apple don't intend it to be a primary but secondary (in some cases temporary) storage solution. For Google, it's primary. The only issue with it as you pointed out, is that it still doesn't address the need for file management but they are using the cloud in the best way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
I also disagree that "Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing". This isn't clear at all. Users can use photos and music in iMovie without knowing anything about the filesystem. We also manage to get those files all over the place, into email, onto iOS devices, onto facebook... all without ever touching the file system.
The files accessible by iMovie are managed by independent apps like a filesystem but it doesn't go far enough. What happens when you want to put quotations from a Word document or Pages document or charts from Numbers into iMovie? You have to find which program had the files, then open them from a flat list, then export graphs/tables to images into your photos app, then go back to iMovie to load that image back in (assuming you remember what you called it). With a filesystem, you can create a project folder that has a vast amount of different files and unique copies if you wish so you know exactly where things are.
With text, you have to think about font support - how do you install new fonts on an iPhone/iPad? How do you fix a corrupted font? How do you download a PDF or a zip file or a .dmg. Where would a .dmg mount to? Where would a USB drive mount to? How do you copy documents/images/music from a USB pen that someone brings to you? How do you open an EPS or .wmv file?
If they've been wondering for 10 years how to get rid of a filesystem, it's obvious why it's taken so long. There are too many basic levels of functionality that require it. I personally don't like the Finder. I don't think it's a great way to work but I haven't found anything better that has the level of control I like to have over files.
I don't want iPhoto to dump images into random places so that if I use those pictures in apps that store the pathnames that it breaks them when iPhoto decides to move the files around. Apple seems to view files as being subservient to apps but I see it the opposite way round. If I have a digital work of art, that piece of work itself is of the utmost importance to me, not Photoshop, Aperture, iPhoto etc. Those apps are merely tools and I could delete all of them on a whim. If my file goes with it, then I'd have lost something important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Note how convenient iTunes is. It is vastly superior to manually managing tens of thousands of music files.
Yes but take the example of iPhoto. What happens when you want to migrate from iPhoto to LightRoom or Aperture, which many people do. What happens when you want to migrate from iMovie to Final Cut Pro, from Garageband to Logic? You just can't constrain the filesystem to each application without making it very difficult to upgrade to more powerful software or work with multiple packages together.
As soon as they rectify this and allow files to stand independently of apps, they have no choice but to make an independent filesystem manager because as soon as your apps disappear, your files are left hanging. File management sounds boring and dull and putting a Finder on an iPhone even seems to me like a wrong thing to do. However, it just needs to be done the right way.
The filesystem needs to be reinvented. Not removed, not hidden. The metadata approach works pretty well for media but it needs to be expanded on to support anything and everything and give the user control over files directly.
It can be the most basic setup like the mockup I made:
You can do pretty much anything with just 2 columns. To move files, you can initiate a move action and it can turn the right column into a hotspot and you'd drag files from the left into that area while navigating the left column. Then you'd go to the destination on the left and submit the action. You've achieved what would normally require multiple Finder windows and actions in one go and no accidental dropping of files.
Even if they use metadata for grouping, it can let you assign tags directly. Obviously, I'd consider managing all files together this way but it may just be that another app can manage everything that's not recognised media (photos, music, movies), which are already independently managed. But there would need to be the facility to tag separated media as part of a project so that an operation on a file in a metadata manager doesn't break the project. They can have an app called Projects and that way it doesn't seem like a file manager and tagging images with projects ids would raise warnings if modifications would break the project.
As far as syncing data is concerned, it's really the simplest thing for someone to plug an SD card into a computer, drag a file onto it and stick it into the iPad. I'd say cloud syncing and iTunes syncing is less intuitive than that. The reason I'd say is because it's something tangible. This is something Apple emphasis with their UI animations. Every action you do, you get to see visually where it comes from and what effect it has, you get to drag things around. A file is a tangible block of data and filesystems are tangible containers of blocks and moving them makes sense. Syncing data online is not tangible so there's no assurance to a user that something has taken place. It's like playing Poker online - they'll tell you you've lost but how do you really know for sure?
Having not really even READ his post, I can tell that his point is that the iPad can be used to manage files quite easily, possibly negating the need for a desktop computer-proper in such a household.
Having not really even READ his post, I can tell that his point is that the iPad can be used to manage files quite easily, possibly negating the need for a desktop computer-proper in such a household.
Indeed, though I suspect he may have meant that a picture of a pretty girl overrules any discussion about file management.
However without this kind of local file management, we know these kind of pictures get synced to our loved one's devices from the same iTunes account as well as our own and they then become someone else's loved one.
Comments
So will the name change? Maybe. But that doesn't really interest me. Other than that, apple shows no indication of switching to a different code base.
I think Mac OS X or XI will be for "professional" use, however. If Apple make iDevices to "replace pcs" then they may attain some of the baggage that makes them less fun and easy for end users. IMO, a big advantage of an iPad/iDevice is that it *doesn't* try to do everything a pc does. That makes it simpler, easier and more fun to use. Making the iPad/iDevice to replace a pc might just make it a pc.
I think Apple's iDevice strategy is aimed at having them appeal and be useful for 80% of the market. The 20% that need all the features and capabilities of a pc/Mac will just need to get a pc/Mac. So I don't see an Aperture for iPad or FCP for iPad or Xcode for iPad as applications that will eventually be developed. Those are pro apps and most suited for a pc/Mac. But this strategy marginalizes pcs.
However, I must admit that Apple don't have much qualms about killing off products and services they see as dead ends. In the 1997 WWDC closing keynote SJ basically had a Q and A with the attendees and he admitted that they "put a bullet in the head" of certain products that Apple/SJ didn't think made sense. Link He admitted that it "pissed" some people off but he was pretty unapologetic about it. He viewed it as necessary for Apple's future. Who's gonna argue with him now?
"Apple doesn't care about desktop Macs anymore"
but in reality they weren't seeing the forest through the trees. A laptops
raison d'être is "portability" and once you have that you do not want to
go back to just a desktop.
Now the next wave is about Smartphone and Tablets ushering in the next phase
where even the laptop is seen as too large and cumbersome for some duties. And
thusly Apple is sprinting towards the light.
OS X won't be phased out until it's on the decline but the truth is the Mac shipments
are increasing ..it's just the mobile shipments are increasing at a faster clip. No one
wants to give away money so I still see long life in OS X.
Apple has never been an Enterprise company. There was no need for Xserve and Xserve RAID
after the decision was made that mobile platforms were going to rule.
In the end it's about profitability.
Is Apple planning to kill off Mac OS X?
The author is adding 2 plus 2 and getting 5:
- iOS is a growing success. Therefore Apple must be de-emphasizing MacOS X. No. I mean, really. Does Lion look like Apple is putting less effort into MacOS X? Really?
- Rumors have it that Apple is testing the A5 in laptops. Therefore, Apple must be switching its laptops to iOS. No. Assume to a microsecond that the rumor is true. This logic appears to come from people who have never lived through an Apple processor transition before. No 680x0 to PPC transition. No PPC to Intel x86 transition. OpenSTEP ran on several processors. MacOS X has never run on fewer than two that we know about. iOS and MacOS X share a codebase. iOS is optimized for touch-based computing, not for a specific processor. MacOS X is optimized for the mouse/touchpad and keyboard, not Intel.
- MacOS X and iOS are cross-pollinating gestures. This is irrefutable proof that iOS will replace MacOS X. No. Come on, people. Apple learns. Laptop and desktop devices are benefiting from Apple's work on palmtop devices. This is not evidence MacOS X is going away. It is evidence that the engineers at Apple have the sense that God gave red brick.
- Apple is moving its software distribution from CDs and DVDs to the Mac App Store. Surely, this is unimpeachable proof that Apple is shifting to iOS on all platforms. No. The Mac App Store is a distribution channel, not an OS. We don't still live in 1995. The overwhelming majority of my software purchases are by digital download. Even a relatively slow Internet connection is faster than the wait for the delivery via FedEx or the drive to a brick-and-mortar store to purchase a shrinkwrap box. This development could not have been less of a surprise. The first MacBook Air, which has no optical drive, went on sale 3.5 years ago. This move confirms the fact that software distribution via removable storage is obsolete much like the original iMac confirmed the fact that the floppy diskette was obsolete.
- Apple is fixated on the consumer market. Its elimination of its Xserve years ago is proof of this. No. Apple is fixated on profits. Dell and HP may sell servers, but Apple has left them in the dust and disappeared over the horizon. Companies dedicated to servers like Sun and SGI went belly-up and were sold-off years ago. Apparently, the enterprise market is not terribly good for a computer company's corporate health. That said, Lion Server will be the most accessible commercial server OS ever. There is some controversy about whether it will cost $50 US or $80 US. However, either price will make it substantial less expensive than the consumer version of Leopard. At that price, we can expect more firms and individuals to pop for the server OS and run their own local servers. I expect the number of MacOS X servers to increase.
What all of this boils down to is that the Apple is taking us into the future, but it is a future that many do not understand. The result is that people like the author, Barry Collins, have to be dragged kicking and screaming into that future.The headline is emotionally charged and negative, but continuous change and refinement is a necessary function of a successful business. One that is not in stasis. I hope a "Macbook Pro" in 2015 will look nothing like a MBP in 2005. I hope it is as improved and different as an iPhone and iPod touch are to cell phones and DAPs in 2005.
It seems like they made a great move with iOS by cutting out all the fat first. They did this jumping from Mac OS 9 -> X and then PPC -> Intel. Then it was desktop -> mobile.
In successive iterations, we've seen iOS get more and more powerful. At WWDC, they said they want to get rid of the filesystem but all they've achieved is to make a more cumbersome application-centric workflow and a slower cloud-centric filesystem.
A simplified local filesystem that allows better use of space and shared documents as well as easy backups and data protection will have to come along whether they want it or not.
When this happens, the best of both OSs can come together to form a single, scalable OS.
Remember back in the classic era when we had to manage memory allocation? Well someday I predict that most users will look back and remember when we had to manage file locations. It will viewed as a cumbersome relic that was imposed on every user across the board. In the future, manual file management will be used only by power users.
This isn't to say that iOS (handheld OS X) is replacing desktop/laptop OS X though. Instead, it means that Apple is tailoring interfaces and workflows to the tasks and devices being used. No matter how simplified our desktop OS becomes, the front-end will still be different than the mobile and server versions. Meanwhile the underpinnings will remain nearly identical.
Nothing is being phased out! If anything, more versions of OS X are being phased in.
I don't think apple has ever said they want to get rid of the file system. But perhaps I missed something... ?
Steve @ WWDC 2011:
"Documents in the Cloud really completes our iOS document storage story. A lot of us have been working for 10 years to get rid of the file system so the user doesn't have to learn about it."
Oddly, they already have a filesystem for apps with home-screens and 1-level deep folders as well as metadata managed iTunes. Those filing systems aren't going away so why do they make out like document filing is somehow a complexity that needs to be hidden rather than just improved?
Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing so the better alternatives are local storage with a filesystem or cloud storage with a filesystem. No matter how fast connections become or how secure companies make you believe your data is, it doesn't change the fact that your data is out of your control.
Remember back in the classic era when we had to manage memory allocation? Well someday I predict that most users will look back and remember when we had to manage file locations.
Memory management is a system task though and does not deal with important persistent data. Documents are at the user-level and both personal and important. They can't be and shouldn't be trivially managed automatically without incurring serious consequences.
Like I say, I don't think the goal should be to remove document filing systems - after all, we use them all the time in everyday life - the goal should just be to make filing better and easier. If you just hide it away from the user then it will cause frustrations when they can't access a file because they are offline and don't understand why. Then they panic because they think it's gone.
Mac OS X was very well received when it came out and one big reason was control. The old Mac OS was too limited in what you could do and very poor for development. Do you ever hear complaints about the Mac OS X walled garden? Not really because you are in control - you download what apps you want, you can play violent games, you can watch adult content easily, you can play whatever video formats you want, you can run emulators/virtual machines, setup a server and on and on. iOS doesn't give you this freedom.
Freedom does not supersede usability, otherwise we'd all be using Linux but it's extremely important nonetheless and I don't think Apple can ever reach a point where they lock Mac OS X down to the level of iOS. I think it will be far better for iOS and Mac OS to evolve together and form a powerful, secure and flexible OS.
iCloud is a synchronization scheme, or as Jobs put it "the truth." In a world of multiple devices and versions, iCloud gives you a reference that gets pushed to your local device. I can't see where that leads to inaccessibility, ever. At worst the latest changes don't get backed up and pushed to your other devices, but that's always going to be true with any on-line system if there's an outage or you don't have a connection.
iCloud simplifies the file system by taking away worries about saving, where saved, which version, etc. You don't have to do anything at all, you just know you have the latest version, no matter which machine you made the last changes on, and that if you lose that version you can recover it.
These are all somewhat different matters than iOS' document centric, flat file system. I don't mind the document centric part, as long as every app that can work with a given file has access to it. I do think the flat thing is going to have to be addressed if Apple is serious about the post-PC thing. You can't really have people opening Pages, say, and only be able to peruse a really long list of possible files, with no user facing way to organize them.
Steve @ WWDC 2011:
"Documents in the Cloud really completes our iOS document storage story. A lot of us have been working for 10 years to get rid of the file system so the user doesn't have to learn about it."
Oddly, they already have a filesystem for apps with home-screens and 1-level deep folders as well as metadata managed iTunes. Those filing systems aren't going away so why do they make out like document filing is somehow a complexity that needs to be hidden rather than just improved?
Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing so the better alternatives are local storage with a filesystem or cloud storage with a filesystem. No matter how fast connections become or how secure companies make you believe your data is, it doesn't change the fact that your data is out of your control.
Memory management is a system task though and does not deal with important persistent data. Documents are at the user-level and both personal and important. They can't be and shouldn't be trivially managed automatically without incurring serious consequences.
Like I say, I don't think the goal should be to remove document filing systems - after all, we use them all the time in everyday life - the goal should just be to make filing better and easier. If you just hide it away from the user then it will cause frustrations when they can't access a file because they are offline and don't understand why. Then they panic because they think it's gone.
Mac OS X was very well received when it came out and one big reason was control. The old Mac OS was too limited in what you could do and very poor for development. Do you ever hear complaints about the Mac OS X walled garden? Not really because you are in control - you download what apps you want, you can play violent games, you can watch adult content easily, you can play whatever video formats you want, you can run emulators/virtual machines, setup a server and on and on. iOS doesn't give you this freedom.
Freedom does not supersede usability, otherwise we'd all be using Linux but it's extremely important nonetheless and I don't think Apple can ever reach a point where they lock Mac OS X down to the level of iOS. I think it will be far better for iOS and Mac OS to evolve together and form a powerful, secure and flexible OS.
Ah, point conceded about what Steve said ion regard to getting rid of the file system. But for some reason i'm still interpreting that as getting rid of the requirement to understand the filesystem, not actually getting rid of the filesystem itself. What I think he meant is something similar to iPhoto. Users can divorce themselves from file management if it fits their workflow. Or they can continue to manage things manually if it is preferable. Either you use the non-filesystem tool, or you use the filesystem. Or a combination of both. Despite the exact wording of what he said, I believe that he meant eliminating filesystems as a necessity, not the removal of direct file access entirely.
I also disagree that "Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing". This isn't clear at all. Users can use photos and music in iMovie without knowing anything about the filesystem. We also manage to get those files all over the place, into email, onto iOS devices, onto facebook... all without ever touching the file system. Certainly, there are times when one or the other is superior. But my assertion, and what I think steve is asserting as well, is that most users don't want to use the file system for most tasks. Or at least they won't after they've experienced the alternative.
Take into account that i'm a developer who must deal with version control on a daily basis. Ironically, this also divorces me from the filesystem. Yet I don't think that apple is intending to remove that functionality for those people and tasks that need it.
Also I disagree that OS X was popular because it gave users more control. Rather, it is popular because it is powerful and convenient. In many instances that means eliminating the need to manage esoteric things for no reason. Note how convenient iTunes is. It is vastly superior to manually managing tens of thousands of music files.
With all that said, excellent post! I really enjoy discussions that forego platform zealotry. Even though we disagree on some points, well done!
Steve @ WWDC 2011:
Oddly, they already have a filesystem for apps with home-screens and 1-level deep folders as well as metadata managed iTunes. Those filing systems aren't going away so why do they make out like document filing is somehow a complexity that needs to be hidden rather than just improved?
Oops, forgot to reply to this key topic.
Perhaps it is just a semantic miscommunication, but I think that those are the filesystem replacements that Steve is talking about. Sure, they are hierarchical representations of data managed somewhat like files are in a filesystem, but the distinction beyond that is what he is referring to. iPhoto allows non-destructive editing and automatic filing while still allowing manual management. Additional functionality is provided above and beyond a filesystem yet somehow it ends up being simpler.
There is certainly a tradeoff, I'll grant that. But so far Apple seems to have made the right decisions in terms of providing an alternative to the file system for managing user data. I can't imagine trying to use my armada of digital devices via old fashioned and cumbersome file management. Merely moving pictures, movies and music between my cameras, iPhones, iPods, and iPads would be a full time job! Just try doing all that via the file system for a month. I think you'll agree that application or task centric data management is far superior to the filesystem for these types of typical tasks.
Oh, and email. Try managing your email through the filesystem. Seriously, the elimination of the need for direct file management is the best thing to happen in computing in a long time!
Does that mean OS X is being phased out? No. It just means that all operating systems are evolving.
I don't think iCloud creates a "then you're offline and can't fine the file and panic" scenario at all. In fact Apple seemed to go out of their way to distinguish themselves from Google in this respect.
You're right, with it being a sync scheme, it can't lead to permanent inaccessibility, unlike Google's setup - the worst that could really happen is that people rely on it too much and e.g sync a presentation to the iCloud and can't get it when they need it. ZDNet wrote the following statement for Apple's iCloud design:
"For Google, the Web is the center of the universe. For Apple, your device is the center of the universe."
It seems Apple don't intend it to be a primary but secondary (in some cases temporary) storage solution. For Google, it's primary. The only issue with it as you pointed out, is that it still doesn't address the need for file management but they are using the cloud in the best way.
I also disagree that "Clearly application-centric storage doesn't work well because it's not good for document sharing". This isn't clear at all. Users can use photos and music in iMovie without knowing anything about the filesystem. We also manage to get those files all over the place, into email, onto iOS devices, onto facebook... all without ever touching the file system.
The files accessible by iMovie are managed by independent apps like a filesystem but it doesn't go far enough. What happens when you want to put quotations from a Word document or Pages document or charts from Numbers into iMovie? You have to find which program had the files, then open them from a flat list, then export graphs/tables to images into your photos app, then go back to iMovie to load that image back in (assuming you remember what you called it). With a filesystem, you can create a project folder that has a vast amount of different files and unique copies if you wish so you know exactly where things are.
With text, you have to think about font support - how do you install new fonts on an iPhone/iPad? How do you fix a corrupted font? How do you download a PDF or a zip file or a .dmg. Where would a .dmg mount to? Where would a USB drive mount to? How do you copy documents/images/music from a USB pen that someone brings to you? How do you open an EPS or .wmv file?
If they've been wondering for 10 years how to get rid of a filesystem, it's obvious why it's taken so long. There are too many basic levels of functionality that require it. I personally don't like the Finder. I don't think it's a great way to work but I haven't found anything better that has the level of control I like to have over files.
I don't want iPhoto to dump images into random places so that if I use those pictures in apps that store the pathnames that it breaks them when iPhoto decides to move the files around. Apple seems to view files as being subservient to apps but I see it the opposite way round. If I have a digital work of art, that piece of work itself is of the utmost importance to me, not Photoshop, Aperture, iPhoto etc. Those apps are merely tools and I could delete all of them on a whim. If my file goes with it, then I'd have lost something important.
Note how convenient iTunes is. It is vastly superior to manually managing tens of thousands of music files.
Yes but take the example of iPhoto. What happens when you want to migrate from iPhoto to LightRoom or Aperture, which many people do. What happens when you want to migrate from iMovie to Final Cut Pro, from Garageband to Logic? You just can't constrain the filesystem to each application without making it very difficult to upgrade to more powerful software or work with multiple packages together.
As soon as they rectify this and allow files to stand independently of apps, they have no choice but to make an independent filesystem manager because as soon as your apps disappear, your files are left hanging. File management sounds boring and dull and putting a Finder on an iPhone even seems to me like a wrong thing to do. However, it just needs to be done the right way.
The filesystem needs to be reinvented. Not removed, not hidden. The metadata approach works pretty well for media but it needs to be expanded on to support anything and everything and give the user control over files directly.
It can be the most basic setup like the mockup I made:
You can do pretty much anything with just 2 columns. To move files, you can initiate a move action and it can turn the right column into a hotspot and you'd drag files from the left into that area while navigating the left column. Then you'd go to the destination on the left and submit the action. You've achieved what would normally require multiple Finder windows and actions in one go and no accidental dropping of files.
Even if they use metadata for grouping, it can let you assign tags directly. Obviously, I'd consider managing all files together this way but it may just be that another app can manage everything that's not recognised media (photos, music, movies), which are already independently managed. But there would need to be the facility to tag separated media as part of a project so that an operation on a file in a metadata manager doesn't break the project. They can have an app called Projects and that way it doesn't seem like a file manager and tagging images with projects ids would raise warnings if modifications would break the project.
As far as syncing data is concerned, it's really the simplest thing for someone to plug an SD card into a computer, drag a file onto it and stick it into the iPad. I'd say cloud syncing and iTunes syncing is less intuitive than that. The reason I'd say is because it's something tangible. This is something Apple emphasis with their UI animations. Every action you do, you get to see visually where it comes from and what effect it has, you get to drag things around. A file is a tangible block of data and filesystems are tangible containers of blocks and moving them makes sense. Syncing data online is not tangible so there's no assurance to a user that something has taken place. It's like playing Poker online - they'll tell you you've lost but how do you really know for sure?
Blah blah blah
Blah blah blah
Your point being?
Your point being?
Having not really even READ his post, I can tell that his point is that the iPad can be used to manage files quite easily, possibly negating the need for a desktop computer-proper in such a household.
It's... pretty freaking clear.
Your point being?
My point being... check out her filesystem.
Having not really even READ his post, I can tell that his point is that the iPad can be used to manage files quite easily, possibly negating the need for a desktop computer-proper in such a household.
Indeed, though I suspect he may have meant that a picture of a pretty girl overrules any discussion about file management.
However without this kind of local file management, we know these kind of pictures get synced to our loved one's devices from the same iTunes account as well as our own and they then become someone else's loved one.
Indeed, though I suspect he may have meant that a picture of a pretty girl overrules any discussion about file management.
I was more impressed that she had a 6th-gen iPod nano in 1999.
I was more impressed that she had a 6th-gen iPod nano in 1999.
i do he even if she had an effing walkman..